uva school of architecture, the joints studio

THE JOINTS STUDIOE d wa rd Fo rd

University of Virginia | Department of Architecture

A

Publisher

Editors

Research Director

Credits

Paper Matters Press | Department of Architecture, University of Virginia

Iñaki Alday, Ryan Carbone

Edward Ford

Copyright Texts | By authorCopyright Drawings | By authorCopyright Model Photos | Scott Smith / By authorCopyright Edition | Department of Architecture, University of Virginia

Graphic Design | Ryan CarboneLayout | Ryan CarboneProduction | Ryan Carbone

Printing | Department of Architecture, University of VirginiaISBN: 978-0-9974301-1-0First Edition | March 2016

Architecture, as part of a research institution is a pedagogical program based in social responsibility, critical thinking and innovation. And as a design discipline, architectural innovation is achieved through design research in different ways. We “search” for information, and we “research” creating knowledge, most often on new scenarios through design speculation seriously informed. Rigorous collection of data, spatialized through mapping and diagraming, create the basis for design research. The critical step forward, assuming the risks of proposing future scenarios, is the unavoidable outcome of the creative work of the research teams.

The Research Studio system is the pedagogical innovation that merges instruction with faculty and students research. Two studios in the undergraduate program (3010 and 4010) and another two in the graduate program (7010 and 8010) are focused on profound architectural research aligned with research interests and expertise of the faculty members. The instructors commit for three to five years to sustain a research line, offering a series of Research Studios that take on a variety of relevant contemporary topics in a consistent multi-year research agenda. Students define their personal path through the program, selecting the research studios offered by Architecture faculty (and Landscape Architecture for the graduates), in their own preferred sequence for the fall of the last two years (3010 and 4010 or 7010 and 8010).

The diversity of topics reflects the intellectual diversity of the Department of Architecture of the University of Virginia. Research projects take on urgent international crises such as the changing condition of the Arctic, neglected cultural landscapes in depressed regions, or one of the most pressing urban ecologies challenge in the world (Delhi and its sacred and poisonous Yamuna River). Others work within local conditions, disciplinary inquiries or philosophical and spatial investigations.

Started in 2012-13, these first four years have been especially instrumental for the development of the youngest faculty, raising $529,000 in grants, five awards and two international symposiums. One of the research projects has become the first all-university grand challenge project. The Research Studio system of UVa has proven itself to be invaluable in defining what “design research” means, its potential to reach broader audiences and impact critical contemporary situations, and to redefine the research culture in the design schools.

Charlottesville, Virginia | March 2016

IñakI alDayQUESaDa PrOfESSOr aND CHaIr, DEParTmENT Of arCHITECTUrE

THE JOINTS STUDIO

P R E FAC E

1

Edward Ford is the author of The Details of Modern Architecture (MIT, 1990, German edition: Birkhauser, 1994, Japanese Edition: Maruzen, 2000) and The Details of Modern Architecture, Volume 2 (MIT, 1996, Japanese Edition: Maruzen, 2000), both supported by grants from the Graham Foundation and the National Endowment for the Arts, and the recently published The Architectural Detail (Princeton Architectural Press). He has published articles in Architectural Design, L’Architecture d’Aujourd’hui, Inform, B, eAV, Detail, Harvard Design Magazine, and Perspecta. He was a consultant to the 1992 American Heritage Dictionary, is a member of the Editorial Board of the Twelfth Edition of Architectural Graphic Standards, and a contributor to The Wiley Companion to Architecture.

His architectural work is the subject of his third book, Five Houses Ten Details (Princeton Architectural Press, Chinese Edition, China Architecture & Building Press) and has been published in The New American House, Japan Architect, Competitions, 18 Houses, ARQ, Inform, The Chronicle of Higher Education and Oculus and has been exhibited at the Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Arts, the Art Institute of Chicago, the Boston Society of Architects and the Chicago Foundation for Architecture. He won second prize in the 1990 Matteson Library Competition and third prize in the 1990 Japan Architect Competition. In 2002 the Ford house won an Honor Award for Design from the Virginia AIA, and in 2013 won a Washington Unbuilt Architecture Award for Park and Recreation Structures Revisited and a Commendation for Trinity +1.

EDWarD fOrDPrOfESSOrDEParTmENT Of arCHITECTUrE

2

ASHLEY ANDERSENANTHONY AVERBECKERIC BARRTOM BLISKAAARON BRIDGERSBRAD BROGDONBEN BURGHARTIAN CARRZACH CARTERELIZABETH CHARPENTIERZHIFEI CHENGPEIWEN DENGERIC DERRAMINA DEROEEBRIANNE DOAKABIGAIL FIGAROALAN FORDKATIE GLEYSTEEN

THE JOINTS STUDIO

WILLIAM GLICKWILLIAM GREENBEN GREGORYHARSH JAINPETER KEMPSONJULIA KWOLYKSALLY LEESARAH BETH MCKAYELIZABETH O’BRIENGREG ORWATPOLLY SMITHGRAHAM SNOWJOHN TREVORDAVID TUCKERCANDICE VANDERHORSTOLIVER VRANESHCLAYTON WILLIAMSLAURA WILLWERTH

3

ST U D I O T E A M

4

We all design the same way. We begin with the large and go to the small. We begin with the ecosystem and work our way down to the detail. We decide on the form then we select the material. We solve all the big problems and then we figure out how to put in columns and beams and what to make them out of and how to join them together. Could you design a building in the opposite direction? Could you begin with the small and go to the large? Could you begin with a material and determine the form? Could you begin with a joint and grow a building out of that joint? The intent of these exercises is to do the latter. To study a joint, to study the material through the joint, and to determine the building out of both. The intent is not to design from abstraction to material reality, but let abstraction emerge out of a material and the way it is joined. Alberti wrote in the second paragraph of the first chapter of the first book of his treatise that architectural forms exist independently of materials. It is the intent of this studio to do the opposite, to generate form out of material by studying the way it is joined.

MATERIAL

JOINT

ASSEMBLY

THE JOINTS STUDIO 5

R E S E A R C H D R I V E RS

MATERIAL

Materials do not merely limit form; they suggest, even determine form in ways that are structural and in ways that are purely aesthetic. A building of wood will be inherently different from a building of concrete or of steel or of brick or of stone.

6

Edward Ford | THE JOINTS STUDIO 7

DRIVER 1 | MATERIAL

In a March 2010 lecture Jonathan Jarvis, Director of the National Park Service, called for a fundamental rethinking of architecture in the National Parks.Specifically he asked whether, in the digital age, the traditional national park visitor’s center was necessary. He argued that the relationship between design and conservation is a shifting one, and that the experience and engagement of the contemporary park visitor, outfitted with smart mobile devices and smaller structures, will likely be different than those of the past.

The great majority of historic national park buildings have changed function multiple times over the course of their lives. In the older Parks thousands of buildings have come and gone. Some have been replaced; many have not. National Parks currently use a variety of temporary, transportable and mutable buildings in a variety of locations: eco-tent structures in Everglades National Park, lightweight metal portable bathhouse cabanas at Assateague Island National Seashore, prefabricated yurts at many of the western desert parks and thousands of trailers for housing, offices and storage.

Laajasalo Church | Kari Järvinen and Merja Nieminen

8

These and similar conditions at other parks suggest that over the coming years, the National Parks will be best served by a non-standard approach to the placing of buildings on the land, an architecture that is smaller in scale, more flexible in its use, and movable in location. Such an architecture would make less of a mark on the land, consume little or no energy, produce little or no waste and could be removed or relocated with changing conditions. It would have foundation systems that were minimal and adaptable, construction systems that allowed for a minimum of heavy equipment, be constructed of sustainable materials, and would use energy systems suitable for remote locations. It could be closed, moved or compacted in off-season and inclement weather. It might be prefabricated; it might be modular. It might be lightweight and retractable. It might be collapsible and portable. The intent is to explore structures that will be less permanent and more flexible, structures that would in all locations make the smallest intervention, leave the smallest impact and that might, in time, disappear altogether.

The intent is not to design a universal, standardized, context-indifferent prototype.The proposed structures would need to respond to extreme variations of climate and topography. At the same time they would need to respond to historical and cultural contexts in ways that respect and learn from those contexts without imitation.

Edward Ford | THE JOINTS STUDIO

Viiki Church | Alvar Aalto

D R I V E R 1 | M AT E R I A L

9

THE JOINTS STUDIO

Standard Code Requirements

code review Name Project Required Design Code Section Use Group A-3, R-1 Construction Type 503 Allowable Area 503 Allowable Height 503 Frontage 506.2 Sprinklers: Y/N Adjusted Allowable Area 506 Adjusted Allowable Height 504 Fire Resistance Req. Structure 601 Walls 601 Side wall 601 Floor 601 Roof 601 Exterior Wall Separation 602 Gross Square Footage Occupancy 1003.2.2.2 Total Building Min. No. of Exits 1004.2.4 Max. Travel Distance 1004.2.4 Max. Distance Between Exits 1004.2.2.1 Min. Corr. Width 1003.3.2.3 Min. Stair width 1003.3.2.3 Auditorium

Seating type: Fixed Y/N Conventional Seating Max. Row Length 1008.8.1 Min. Row Spacing 1008.8 Min. Aisle Width 1008.7.1 Longest Dead End Aisle 1008.7.5 Main Exit Requirement 1004.2.1 Max Travel to Exit 1008.6 Auditorium Continental Seating

Max. Row Length Min. Row Spacing Min. Side Aisle Width Side Door Requirements Atrium Height Plumbing WCs Urinals

11

JOINT

Joints are not merely the means of making architecture; they are the means of understanding architecture. We understand architecture in relation to our own bodies and it is the joints of a building that determine its parts and that makes that possible.

Ledge House | Bohlin Cwinski Jackson

12

Snow, G + Bridgers, A | THE JOINTS STUDIO

DRIVER 2 | JOINT

13

PROCESS: PART 1

Carr, I + Bliska, T | THE JOINTS STUDIO

Vanke Tsing Tao Pearl Hill Visitor Center | Bohlin Cywinski Jackson

Vanke Tsing Tao Pearl Hill Visitor Center | Bohlin Cywinski Jackson

The first exercise is to generate forms from joints. Some of the joints are drawn from vernacular architecture, others from architectural history and others are invented. The structures generated are similar to buildings but will have no functional purpose. A series of small models of a series of joints are built, using insofar as possible the real materials, typically steel and wood. A variety of joints are explored and many are discarded. Some joints dictate certain types of structural forms, triangles for example. The effect of other types of joints are more open-ended and aesthetic. Do the parts that are joined remain visually autonomous? Does it make the structure appear heavy or light?

D R I V E R 2 | J O I N T

15

Vanke Tsing Tao Pearl Hill Visitor Center , China

Marino, A + Barr, E | THE JOINTS STUDIO


17

Cape Cod is a landscape in flux. Formed by geologic process over the past 10,000 years, and continually shaped by the oceanic tides and coastal erosion, no ground in Cape Cod is permanent. The National Seashore must continually stay aware of these processes, and adjust by moving, or completely demolishing and reconstructing the numerous cultural and institutional built resources along the shore; the lighthouses, bathhouses and visitor centers that greet the thousands of visitors each year. What unique approaches can be taken to address these concerns?

By turning the design process on its head, starting with the detail and working to the larger picture, this studio sought to investigate what a building could be under these unique conditions. My design attempts to confront this ever-changing landscape. By perching the series of bathhouses and changing-rooms atop a cliff, the scheme allows for the closest and most convenient relationship to the beach below. To respond to the 3-foot-per-year receding of the cliff, the canopy and series of volumes beneath are detailed at the most granular scale practicable. The design, which started with a 4’ x 4’ bent wood box, connect to other such boxes by steel connectors forming a versatile two-way grid, and is able to, bay-by-bay, be disassembled from the front of the structure and added to the back end, matching the erosion of the cliff on which the building sits. This causes a series of formal and spatial changes which provide a vehicle to express the rate of change of the landscape they rest upon.

Carter, Z + Gregory, B | THE JOINTS STUDIO

Modular Canopy System

Modular Wall and Floor System

Column and Bracing System


19

We conceive a building as an abstraction as forms of indeterminate material that are eroded, skewed, inflected, displaced and subdivided. The reality is that architecture is the addition of real objects that are assembled steel or steel connectors that are bolted and welded; pieces of wood that are nailed, dovetailed or mortised and tenoned.

ASSEMBLY

20

Carter, Z | THE JOINTS STUDIO

DRIVER 3 | ASSEMBLY

21

PROCESS: PART 2The second step is to generate larger scale structures from these joints, again using physical models and the real materials. Many will be appropriate to only short or long spans or only certain types of program. Climate and shelter begin to be considered and the structures are transformed but will still be largely without program and the construction. Some systems will play a role as a way in determining exterior / interior relationships. Some will suggest possibilities of panelization or prefabrication or simply multiplication and this type of exploration will then move into CADD.

Rolling Huts | Tom Kundig

Hadaway House | PATKAU Architects

22

ROLLING HUTS - MAZAMA,WA

Gregory, B | THE JOINTS STUDIO

D R I V E R 3 | A SS E M B LY

23 TRANSVERSE SECTIONSCALE 1/2” = 1’-0”

PROCESS: PART 3The structures are applied to the design of an architectural problem. Most of the sites and programs over the last five years have been located in state and national parks: a Visitor Center at Cape Cod National Seashore in Massachusetts, an Environment Education Center at Yosemite National Park in California, a Visitor Center and Administrative Building in Acadia National Park in Maine and a Conference Center at Seven Bends State Park in Virginia.

24

Gregory, B | THE JOINTS STUDIO


25

Carr, I + Bliska, T | THE JOINTS STUDIO


27

Carr, I | THE JOINTS STUDIO


29

Eck, B | THE JOINTS STUDIO


31

Jain, H | THE JOINTS STUDIO


33

Barr, E | THE JOINTS STUDIO


35

Carter, Z | THE JOINTS STUDIO


37

University of Virginia | Department of Architecture

A

38

uva school of architecture, the joints studio

Documents